In the Red (Sang Ah Kim)

source

RED WOLF 

canus rufus

LISTING

10/26/1990

Critically Endangered

WOLVES

Red wolves are one of the most endangered canids in the world. Unlike gray wolves, their coats are warmer shades, such as red and brown, often accented with black along their backs or on their tails. Their size lies between gray wolves and coyotes. They are typically around 4 feet long and weigh around 45-80 pounds. 

LIFESTYLE

source

Red wolves are carnivores and they typically eat smaller mammals such as raccoons, rabbits, rodents, and white tailed deer. 

They have a wide variety of habitats which include forests, swamps, and coastal prairies.

In the US, the habitats of the Red Wolf has been limited from southeastern Texas to central Pennsylvania, to only the eastern North Carolina Albemarle Peninsula.

Red wolves mate for life, creating families of 5-8 wolves. They breed once a year from January to March. Once the wolves are 1 to 3 years old, they will leave the pack to find their own mates.

LIFESPAN

In the wild: 5-6 years

In captivity: as long as 14 years

POPULATION 

Red wolves were listed as endangered in 1967. Because of the dwindling numbers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service carried out a plan to breed pure red wolves in captivity. They captured about 400 animals, but only 14 were breed-able purebreds. The Red Wolf was actually declared extinct in the wild in 1980, but fortunately were reintroduced in 1987. There are approximately 300 red wolves alive today.

THREATS

There are two main threats to Red Wolves

source

1. Wolf - Coyote Hybridization
Wolf coyote hybridization was the main cause of the original extinction of the Red Wolf and the interactions between the wolves and coyotes still pose the biggest threat for the recovery for the wolves. To counter this, coyotes have been sterilized to reduce hybridization and allow the wolves to maintain genetic diversity.

2. Killing
The second cause of the fall in Red Wolf populations is the killing of red wolves, whether by accident or by hunting. Because of the development of humans and habitat fragmentation, there are higher chances of interactions between wolves and people, resulting in car accidents or shootings. During Fall of 2013, six wolves were shot, and the shootings continue today. Along with the shootings, comes the tampering of radio tracking collars that are placed on the wolves, showing the illegal killing of wolves is still very prominent despite it being a federal crime.

RECOVERY PLAN

source

Captive breeding is the main plan for recovery. Because of the risk of hybridization and the low survival rate of wild pups, captive breeding is a plausible solution.
By successfully breeding animals and releasing them back into the wild, the wolf population is growing and the number of fertile animals are growing, aiding the growth of the overall population.
In a program in North Caroline by September 2002, 102 wolves were released and created at lease 281 descendants.
In 1991, another 37 wolves were released in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee.
Currently (as of 2002) there are 175 wolves in captivity and 33 breeding facilities in the US and in Canada.
Captive breeding allows population growth, genetic diversity, and higher offspring survival rates.

source

More Sources:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/3747/0

http://www.defenders.org/red-wolf/basic-facts

https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Wildlife-Library/Mammals/Red-Wolf.aspxhttp://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/901026.pdf
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/03/red-wolves-an-endangered-species-in-peril/

Pygmy Rabbits in Peril

Pygmy Rabbits in Peril (Brachylagus idahoensis)
Olivia Kilgore

Description & Ecology of Organism

Pygmy Rabbit http://www.gsseser.com/Newsletter/archive/pygmy.jpg

  

The pygmy rabbit has bounced around from genus to genus since it was first classified in 1891, but currently resides in the Brachylagus genus, and is related to other rabbits and hares.  As they are the lowest delineation in the taxonomic family with no further subspecies, they are also the smallest leporid in North America. This particular rabbit generally is found in the Great Basin, which is in the mountainous north west of the United States. Grey in color with accents of brown, these rabbits have short ears and a do not have the typical white fur on their tails, and unlike usual trends in mammals, the female rabbits are larger than the males.

Geographic and Population Changes

The Great Basin http://img.geocaching.com/cache/large/d663da10-aa75-4ed7-ae31-c91a4a9b562c.jpg

 The pygmy rabbit generally resides in the shrubs (sagebrush) of the mountainous western United States known as the Great Basin. They can also be found a bit eastward. Semiarid areas are optimal, though pygmy rabbits will migrate (their home ranges are small) to wherever weather and other disturbances such as flooding or agricultural endeavors cause the least trouble. This migration tends to be through areas if dense vegetation and also across plains. Sagebrush is one of the most important habitat components for them because it provides not only cover but food as well year round. Female rabbits reach maturity as just a year old, and will give birth to about 3.5 young each time through January-June. The mothers burrow and nest during this time, and though half of the young can die before two months of age, mothers can give birth up to 4 times every year.

Listing Date & Type of Listing

 The pygmy rabbit was listed under the ESA specifically in Washington state as fully endangered on March 5, 2003. The threat to their existence in this area was initially recognized in 2001 (11/30), when less than 30 of these rabbits were found in a statewide search. Unfortunately though some were captured into captivity, the last genetically pure pygmy of this region was determined to have died in an Oregon zoo in 2008 (efforts for recovery here are still active).

Cause of Listing & Main Threats to Existence

Pygmy rabbits are greatly affected by the primary cause of extinction which is habitat fragmentation, by way of agricultural developments. This issue is what has initially caused them to decline in numbers, which has made them all the more vulnerable to stochastic factors such as weather changes, disease, predation, and other chance events. Each of these factors may not being occurring all at once, but the fact that they are all having an influence at one point or another causes the species' endangerment. Because these rabbits rely so heavily on the presence of sagebrush in their environment, its removal by farmers and subsequent replacement by other plant species is quite detrimental.

Sagebrush is a necessary component for pygmy rabbit habitats

 http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/plant-of-the-week/images/sagebrush/artemisia_tridentata_04_lg.jpg

Description of Recovery Plan

 The goal of the recovery plan is to have the species de-listed from endangerment through the phases of counteracting the imminent threats to the population, reintroducing a successful population to the area, and then from that point protect the resiliency of said population. This strategy will be put into effect through biological planning and conservation design to work with the lay of the land in such a way that the rabbits will be able to survive without needing human interference. Free-ranging rabbits will be monitored in terms of reproductive success and their habitats maintained until they are back to acceptable numbers. This plan would be carried out with the hopeful funding brought about by educating about the growing concern of extinction.

To learn more about what you can do to help save pygmy rabbits, please visit refugeassociation.org

Works Cited

Bolen, Anne. "Return of the Mighty Pygmy Rabbit." National Wildlife Federation. N.p., 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 08 June 2015.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Recovery Plan for the Columbia Basin Distinct Population Segment of the Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis). Portland, Oregon.ix+109p

 

Whale You Help Save Killer Whales?

The Southern Resident Killer Whale: A Species Listed on the Endangered Species Act.  

By: Lindsey Kuster 

 

1. Description and Ecology of Organism

Figure 1 - Killer Whale 

The killer whale, also known as the Orcinus orca, is known for its distinct look seen in figure 1. These whales have a black back with a white stomachs, sides, and patch around its eye. Killer whales are big! They can reach up to 31ft in length and weigh around 6 tons. Because of the whale’s size and athletic build, they are the fastest marine mammal, reaching speeds around 35mph. Something cool about these whales is that they use very advance vocal communications to talk to one another and travel and live in highly stable social groups or pods (figure 3). They also us echolocation for feeding and they primarily eat salmonids.

2. Geographic and Population Changes

Figure 2 - Habitat of Killer Whales 

Southern Resident killer whales live primarily off of the coast of Washington State and British Columbia seen in figure 2. From 1996 to 2001, the population of these whales declined about 20%, so they became petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2001. Southern Resident killer whales were listed as an endangered species in 2005. Since 2001, this killer whale population had been increasing, with 87 whales in the region in 2007.

Figure 3- Killer whale pod

3. Listing Date and Type of Listing

Date listed: 02/16/2006

Type of Listing: Endangered

4. Cause of listing and Main threats to its continued existence

   

   Figure 4 - Oil Spill pollution  

The main threats to the killer whales are prey availability, pollution and contaminants, and sound pollution from boats and vessels. These whales also have a small population size which can make them more vulnerable to extinction, from many factors including oil spills (figure 4).

5.   Description of Recovery Plan

The recovery plan that was developed to addresses the main threats to the population.

·         Prey Availability: Managers are using resources to support the salmon population, including their habitat and harvest management.

·         Pollution/Contamination: Efforts to clean up contaminated areas, and to minimize future contaminates that are harmful to the killer whales.

·         Vessel Effects: Working to improve the guidelines for vessels around the killer whales habitat.

·         Oil Spills: Working to improve response preparation in case of an oil spill and working to prevent oil spills in the first place.

·         Acoustic Effects: using resources to minimize potential impacts from sound pollution.

·         Education and Outreach: Increasing public awareness, educating the public on things they can do to help, and improving the reporting’s of Southern Resident killer whales.

·         Response to Sick, Stranded, or Injured Whales: Working to improve response to sick or injures whales, and to determine health risks and causes of death.

·         Research and Monitoring: Conducting research to continue to learn about these killer whales to enhance conservation efforts.

Figure 5 - Happy Whale

The overall goal is to get these killer whales to have a healthy, self-sustaining population, and take them off the ESA. For the whales to be delisted, the Southern Resident killer whale population has to have an average growth of 2.3 percent per year for 28 years, and the threats to the whale’s extinction must all be taken care of. 

All information was taken from National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales. To learn more go to http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/whale_killer.pdf


Citations:

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.

Image Sources:

Figure 1 -  http://www.gowhales.com/PhotoGalleries/KillerWhales/pages/80330KillerWhaleLeapDB.htm

Figure 2 -
http://www.hww.ca/en/wildlife/mammals/killer-whale.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

Figure 3-
http://www.viajadora.com/blackfish-seaworld/

Figure 4 -
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/10/gulf-oil-spill/bourne-text

Figure 5-
 http://www.takepart.com/photos/6-ways-rescue-killer-whales-captive

Leather back Sea Turtles in danger

Leatherback Sea Turtles in danger

Kendall Kucera

Investigation Underway in Puerto Rico Over Killing of Leatherback Sea Turtle
Latino Daily News

Summarization and Description:

The Leatherback Sea (Dermochelys coriacea) turtle is the largest species of turtle in the world. Research shows that this specific species of sea turtle dates back 100 million years. Leatherback’s can grow up to seven feet long and weigh over 2,000 pounds. The Leatherback’s shell differs from most sea turtles because its shell is somewhat flexible and feels similar to rubber. Unfortunately, this species of sea turtle has been on the endangered species list since January 1, 1998 due mostly to bycatch fishing and disturbances to their nesting areas. 

Geographic and population Changes:

One unique thing about the Leatherback Sea turtle is that you can find the them in every ocean except the Arctic. During their feed and mating routines, they migrate about 3,700 miles during their entire migration. Mexico was once the worlds largest nesting populations for leatherback sea turtle, although there have been severe declines in the populations everywhere in the world which made Mexico no longer the leading spot. The largest nesting grounds are currently located in Papua New Guinea and South America, but there are no nesting grounds on beaches under U.S. jurisdiction. The temperature of the nesting ground determines the sex of the sea turtle; and once hatched the female will swim to sea and return when it reaches maturity to hatch its eggs, while the male will spend the rest of its life in the sea. 

Listing Date and Type of Listing:

The Leatherback turtle was listed under the ESA on January 1, 1998 as an endangered species. The recovery actions are in high priority due to high seas fisheries and the killings of nesting females and collecting of eggs on the beach. Because the leatherback sea turtles have such a wide range of migration it is hard to tell exactly how large the population is. 

Cause of listing and Main threats to its continued existence:

The first threat to incidental take in fisheries which means the turtles getting caught into fishing lines and entangled in trash and debris. More threats to Leatherback turtles are increased human presence, coastal construction, nest predation, beach erosion, artificial lighting, beach mining, vehicular driving on beaches, exotic vegetation, beach cleaning, beach replenishment, directed take, natural disasters, disease and parasites, environmental contaminants, debris, fisheries, predation, boat collisions, marina and dock development, oil exploration and development and power plant entrapments. 

Recovery Plan:

Nesting baby Turtles
http://www.theearthconnection.org/blog/2012/07/
a-major-victory-for-the-leatherback-sea-turtle/

The goal for the Leatherback Sea Turtles is to get it off the list of endangered species. The ways they plan on delisting the Leatherbacks is by protecting and managing turtles on nesting beaches by eliminating the take of turtles and their eggs through education and information, increasing the laws against taking them and ensuring that construction on the coast does not disrupt them. Another goal is to protect and manage the leatherback populations in the marine habitat; this is because 99% of a turtle’s life is spent in the sea. The task in order to carry out this goal are to monitor fisheries and protect the habitat of the turtles. The last goal that is part of the recovery plan is international cooperation to ensure that the turtles are protected in foreign waters as well as the United States. 

Works Cited: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/981201d.pdf

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/leatherback-sea-turtle/

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/leatherback-sea-turtle.htm

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/leatherback.htm

Last Manzanita in San Francisco

Description and Ecology of Organism:

http://www.laspilitas.com/nature­-of­-california/
plants/52­­--arctostaphylos­-hookeri-­
franciscana-­franciscana­-manzanita

Arctostaphylos franciscana, commonly known as the Franciscan manzanita, is a low evergreen shrub in the heath family that grows to be
about 2 to 3 feet tall and contains very small brown fruit, about 0.24 to 0.32 in, and pink urn­shaped flowers that earned its name manzanita, or “little apple” (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). As chaparral plant species, a trigger for germination is fire. It is not known exactly what is needed for pollination or sustainable habitat since records were destroyed in 1940s, so these aspects can only be inferred. However, it is known the plant requires a pollinator like a bumblebee, a fruit dispersal community like rodents, and a soil mycorrhizal fungi community (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service).

Geographic and Population Changes:

http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=Serpentine
_Grasslands_and_Maritime_Chaparral

Originally, these plants were found on the serpentine soils like Masonic and Laurel Hill Cemeteries and Mount Davidson. According to the USDA Forest Service, serpentine soils contains high levels of nickel and magnesium that is only able to support a few, unique species of plants tolerant to these conditions, like Arctostaphylos franciscana so there was low competition (USDA Forest Service).  However, these sites got destroyed for urban development in 1947 and the wild plant was not rediscovered until one was found on a construction site in 2009.

http://d3aczscok13w62.cloudfront.net/
wp­content/uploads/2012/03/
The­Presidio­of­San­Francis co.png

The last wild plant was relocated and now currently resides in the San Francisco Presidio and is endemic to San Francisco.

Listing Date and Type: Arctostaphylos franciscana was listed as endangered under the ESA in February 2013.

Cause of listing and Main threats to its continued existence:
Arctostaphylos franciscana was thought to be extinct, so as soon as one wild plant was found it was quickly listed to protect it from actually becoming extinct. The main threat that nearly caused the plants extinction is habitat loss due to urbanization or purposeful habitat conversion from the plant’s native serpentine chaparral habitat to a habitat more suited for nonnative species.

http://www.shipdetective.com/images/
maps/San_Francisco_districts_map.png

Also nitrogen from cars that run through the entirely of San Francisco with the exception of Presidio and Golden Gate Park have also been a detriment by increasing nonnative grass cover and further reducing the plant's native range. Arctostaphylos franciscana also faces disease and predation from potential threats like twig blight, P​hytophthora p​athogens, gnawing by voles, and larvae infestation from moths (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). Other threats include over trimming, altered fire regimes, loss of genetic diversity, loss of pollinators, climate change, hybridization, and a high probability of a negative stochastic event due to only having one wild plant remainding. (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service)

Description of Recovery Plan:

https://sfforest.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/
proposed-manzanita-habitat-glen-canyon.jpg

Since there is only one wild plant left, a lot of focus is going into protecting it from any disturbances that would threaten its survival as well as facilitating its growth in the botanical garden. The primary tacit for recovery will be to re establish populations of the species by taking cuttings from the wild plant and putting them into a habitat with appropriate soils, pollinators, seed dispersers, and soil mycorrhizal fungi (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). In order to achieve delisting, the plant must establish many self­sustaining populations in historical ranges or any other appropriate habitat in the San Francisco peninsula (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). The species has a high threat, but also high potential for recovery.

Works cited:

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service.​ Recovery Outline for the Arctostaphylos franciscana (Franciscan manzanita). S​acramento. Retrieved 27 May 2015 from h​ttp://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ recovery_plan/Franciscan%20manzanita_Recovery%20Outline.​pdf

USDA Forest Service. “Serpentine Soils and Plant Adaptations”. United States Department of Agriculture. 2007. Web. Retrieved 1 June 2015 from h​ttp://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/ beauty/serpentines/adaptations.shtml

They are not gophers, they are endangered species!

Point Arena Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa nigra)
by Laurence Kuo

Summarize Description and Ecology of Organism

Point Arena Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa nigra, figure 1) is listed as endangered species since December 12, 1991. Mountain beavers are the only extant member of the family Aplodontidae, and are considered the most primitive living rodents. The mountain beaver (Aplodomtia rufa) has overlap characteristics of the Point Arena (Aplodontia nigra). For this case, the specie name was later refined to as Aplodontia rufa nigra. The first classification of the mountain beaver came from the journals of Lewis and Clark in 1805.

Figure 1: Point Arena Mountain Beaver https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQstYbtKmEue_MSucttTYtwstngHxkuehayqy2cJSTQjcQ5C7HK

Point Arena Mountain Beaver

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQstYbtKmEue_MSucttTYtwstngHxkuehayqy2cJSTQjcQ5C7HK

The mountain beaver is like a combination of “overgrown pocket gopher and a

muskrat without a tail.” An average mountain beaver is about 30.5 centimeters long and weighs about 2 to 4 pounds. The mountain beaver has wide yet flat skull, especially near the eye socket isa. They have long whiskers on the nose with small eyes and ears. There is a patch of white hair near the ears. They have short equal limbs with curved claws. Most importantly, mountain beaver have a unique black coloration. It is also one of the smallest species in California (Recovery Plan. Pg. 1).

Geographic and Population Changes

The Point Arena mountain beaver is most found in the western Mendocino County. There are seven subspecies of mountain beaver like to perch in cool areas, and moist environment. Most of these subspecies can be found along the Pacific Coast of Northern America, southern British Columbia to Point Reyes, California and Sierra Nevada Ranges. The Point Arena Mountain Beaver is found along the northern coast of California. The size of the total population is estimates to be 200 to 500 animals (Recovery Plan. Pg. 2).

Mountain Beaver live in underground burrow systems (figure 2) with moist climate as well as well-drained soil. Mountain beaver lives depended on a large amount of lush vegetation for survival. Historically, mountain beaver is found in forested areas. But because of the development of agriculture, the beaver population has been changed. They are now found in many agricultural areas, especially the area with cattle gazing. As of today, mountain beaver can no longer be found in forest setting. Areas such as Mallo Pass Creek, Alder Creek, and Middle Brush Creek (figure 3) has many openings underground that can leads to where the mountain beaver lives. A recent discovered beaver population was located along side of the Garcia River where there’s vegetation system dominated by cow parsnip, stinging nettle, and California blackberry.

Figure 2. Burrow 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Aplodontia_rufa_distribution_map.png/220px-Aplodontia_rufa_distribution_map.png

Figure 3. Habitat 

http://g2.travel.ru/g2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=45479&g2_serialNumber=1

In general, areas with largest number of plant species correlate with the number of mountain beaver activities. Many of the mountain beaver can be found with areas that have extensive underground burrow systems with numerous openings (Recovery Plan. Pg. 5). Research indicated per animal, there are 5 to 10 burrows openings that they will use to connect them between the underground and the outside world. Mountain beavers spend about 75% of their time in their nest chamber. Mountain beaver are considered a neat creature because they like to keep their tunnels clean and free of debris (Recovery Plan. Pg. 9).

Listing Date and Type of Listing

The mountain beaver was listed under the ESA on December 12, 1991, as an endangered species. The mountain beaver was listed as endangered since 1991, the status never changed. It is considered one of the highly priority species. The beaver are mainly found in California and Nevada (Recovery Plan. Pg. 30).

Cause of listing and Main threats to its continued existence

The factors that cause Mountain beaver became endangered such as in urban development might one of reasons causes the beaver being endangered (Recovery Plan. Pg. 22). The increasing number of human disturbance in the environment contributed to the decrease of the mountain beaver’s population. Many of the households may have pets that walk around the area where the beavers located at and catches these poor beavers. Since these beaver reproductive rates are very low, they cannot produce the new population fast enough to replace the dead ones. Many of these known areas are home to the mountain beaver have been being commercially housing development. More housing means more people will occupy there, it became an additional threat to the beaver population. Also, pest control of these agricultural systems is an ongoing threat to the mountain beaver (Recovery Plan. Pg. 25). Many of these maintenance workers place poison bait and traps out to kill what they thinks are gophers, as mountain beaver do have gopher’s characteristics. These workers can easily make mistakes to kill them. These isolated mountain beavers are highly vulnerable to these poison and lethal chemicals. Another reason why the mountain beavers are endangered is because they have infections and intestinal diseases such as tapeworms and other parasites.

Recovery Plans

The Recovery Plans for the species was approved on June 02, 1998. There is detail

information that is used as recovery criteria for recovering the species (Recovery Plan. Pg. 33).

Recovery Criteria:

a. At least 16 populations need to be protected from human disturbance.

b. Develop an acceptable population-monitoring program to ensure all 16 populations are stable.

c. Determine the amount of additional habitat needed for population interconnectivity.

d. The insurance of sufficient informations must be provided for the subspecies habitat management and life history of adaptive management for these populations.

e. The populations should have a mean density of at least 4 point per hectare to insure health and stable habitat.

Action Plans:

1. Protect existing mountain beaver populations. Land acquisitions: Plans to protect the areas where these mountain beaver are located in. These land protection should be based on the actual size of their populations. This plan should insure protection from outside disturbance.

Develop plans to identify and eliminate the threats of the mountain beaver population. There should be a management plans that do research and monitor the population. Develop guidelines on how to protect the populations (Recovery Plan. Pg. 36).

2. Survey to locate new populations. Plans to develop survey protocol to identify suitable habitat for the mountain beaver. Use survey to find additional land for the population (Pg. 37).

3. Conduct research on Point Arena mountain beaver. Since there are limited information and research on the mountain beaver, more research is necessary in determine the biological or ecological profile of the mountain beaver. Start a library filled with information and books on mountain beaver (Recovery Plan. Pg. 39).

4. Restore the Point Arena mountain beaver to suitable habitat. If no new suitable areas can be found for the mountain beaver, it is necessary to restore the current known area into a suitable environment for the beaver (Recovery Plan. Pg. 41).

Objective to be met:

The estimated date for down listing to threatened status for the Point Arena mountain beaver is in 2015 and the date for delisting is by 2025.

Implementation Progress:

• The plans to protect existing populations are currently still ongoing. BLM has partially installed protective fencing around Mud Flat area in 2008.

• Develop and implement management guidelines. In 2002, CDPR developed a management plan. In 2006, BLM developed an interim management plan for Stometta Public Lands. In 2004, FWS developed standard protective measures to preclude take on private lands.

• Plans to identify habitat for restoration and develop restoration strategies are still ongoing. It has not been started yet.

• In 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services developed the monitoring protocol but has not started in conducting qualitative monitoring of the populations. This project is currently ongoing.

• In 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services developed a survey protocol and completed the task of identifying suitable habitat for surveying.

• In 2009, an outreach effort to obtain access to private lands was initiated.

• In 2000, the project to design studies to gather biological ecological data was initiated. In 2004 - 2008, research conducted to collect data on home range breeding season dates, and den site characteristics.

• In 2008, the plans to conduct genetic analyses started. Rangewide of samples were collected. A study was conducted from these samples. This plan was completed in 2011.

• Many of the plans that was implemented still needs ongoing actions and effort to complete. Many of these tasks are hard and require many help. It will take times. And hopefully by 2015, the Point Arena Mountain Beaver can be delisted as endangered.

Works Cited:

Steele, D. T., & Litman, L. Point Arena Mountain Beaver: Aplodontia rufa nigra. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Recover Plan. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/recovery_plan/980602.pdf

Point Arena Mountain Beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra (Rafinesque) Recovery Plan. (1998, June 2). Recovery Plan Action Status. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from
http://ecos.fws.gov/roar/pub/planImplementationStatus.action? documentId=400328&entityId=49